Post New

Here's a little comparison of the documents issue with respect to former secretary of state Clinton and former president Trump. But first, a clean-up of the drone strike information that Dope1 is so obsessed with: an email in one chain forwarded a front-page New York Times story about a drone strike which the CIA said that, under its rules, was classified information.

A front-page New York Times story.

                         CLINTON                          TRUMP
                       113 emails                  NARA retrieved 184
            contained classified information     classified documents on
                                                       January 17
                                                  92 secret, 25 top secret

                 3 of those emails were          Trump attorneys returned
             (incorrectly) marked classified      38 classified documents  
                                                       on June 3
                                                 16 secret, 17 top secret

                                                 FBI found 103 classified
                                                   documents on August 8
                                                 54 secret, 18 top secret

The FBI said that Clinton should have recognized that some of the 113 emails were classified, but others she might have understandably missed. In 2018, a Justice Department report found that the classification markings were not clear (the documents in the emails were not marked at all or were incorrectly marked).

Also of note: when classified information was clearly involved, Clinton's "briefings were on a different system, a classified Blackberry that was managed by State Department IT people."

On the campaign trail, Trump said Clinton was "guilty as hell".

When Trump was president it was discovered that "some White House staff conducted official business using nonofficial electronic messaging accounts that were not copied or forwarded into their official electronic messaging accounts, as required by section 2009 of the Presidential Records Act."

Gee.

In 2018, about halfway through Trump's presidency, the National Archives learned that Trump was tearing up official documents.

Huh.

So, Clinton had emails with classified information within them (although incorrectly marked or not marked classified) while Trump took properly marked hard copy classified documents from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them at his personal residence in unsecured locations.

Finally, had Trump simply returned the documents to NARA when asked to do so, he would have had zero legal jeopardy, just as the FBI and IG determined for Clinton and which was announced today for Pence (and very likely for Biden, as well).

What's the over/under on whether the $2 billion Kushner money and the multi-million dollar LIV-Trump golf deal can be traced to the missing Iran invasion document?

Sorry, forgot the link: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/poli...

lol.


1.)Jail.


2.)Electioneering


2a.)Third Party from the NeoCon (Democrats who like wars and kneel for Israel)

2b.)Third Party from the Establishment Right. Romney-Bush-etc - as favored by the Google Link Jockey here. The Country Club Repubs who used blue collar voters - until blue collar voters finally figured out it was a scam.

2c.)Targeted Third Party - think Ridge in Penn. Or Kasich in OH. Someone who has no desire for future office...and can take 1-3% in a key state and flip it blue.

2d.) Have the Establishment bully ALL Trump challengers out of the race by date X....leaving just one Republican to challenge him - thereby not splitting the Anti-Trump vote within the Republican primary.


As long as the out of touch, snobby, Greedy 401K Liberals are in their non-diverse enclaves, sneering at the rest of America, and embarking on 24/7 Trump Derangement Syndrome , and Trump documents - while the Americans they are NOT AWARE OF are merely thinking about gas and beef and wondering just how "I paid my bills" became their apex in life....

Trump would beat Biden tonight in a non electioneered election.

So, if the Whole Food snobs are going state on documents and Russia.....do one of the above. Because otherwise, you are simply on Trump's campaign payroll, helping him win again.

Hilarious, you claiming others are obsessed yet starting a whole other thread about.

Quick question: which of the two was conducting official government business and housing classified information on a private server?

The 'obsession' is yours, and it's with trying you best to justify your fantasy that Hillary! doesn't belong behind bars.

The 'obsession' is yours, and it's with trying you best to justify your fantasy that Hillary! doesn't belong behind bars.

What specific criminal statute do you think she violated, for which there is evidence to support all the elements of the crime?

What specific criminal statute do you think she violated, for which there is evidence to support all the elements of the crime?

Take your pick. We've covered this. If what Hillary! did WASN'T illegal, then short of breaking into a secure facility and stealing the info pretty much nothing is.

Take your pick. We've covered this.

No we haven't. You cited one statute - and it's one Clinton can't be charged under. Because one of the elements of that crime requires that the person had to have been the one to remove the classified information. From all the publicly available information, the classified info that Clinton had was stuff that was sent to her, not stuff she sent herself.

If what Hillary! did WASN'T illegal, then short of breaking into a secure facility and stealing the info pretty much nothing is.

Many things are illegal but not crimes. For Clinton to have committed a crime, she has to have committed all of the requisite acts to constitute that crime under the defining statute.

I ask again - if you're so convinced that she should be behind bars, what is the criminal statute you believe she has violated?

<i.From all the publicly available information, the classified info that Clinton had was stuff that was sent to her, not stuff she sent herself.

*throws up hands*
You can't have that stuff where she had it. You certainly can't give other people like Huma access to it.
If you folks are going to sit there and furnish a jail cell for Trump, then your prison better have plenty of room 'cause he's going to have lots of cellmates.

*throws up hands*
You can't have that stuff where she had it. You certainly can't give other people like Huma access to it.


Again, not everything that is forbidden or illegal is criminal/.

That's why you're throwing up your hands. You're not recognizing that it's not just enough to show that what Clinton did violated the rules on handling classified information. That she wasn't allowed to store the information there.

You have to show that her behavior violated a criminal statute. Not merely that it was wrong or illegal - that it was a crime.

The reason she wasn't charged is because her behavior didn't fit any criminal statutes. Without that, a crime can't be charged. It doesn't matter how illegal or wrong someone's behavior is - if it doesn't violate a criminal statute, charges can't be brought.

Isn't "violate a criminal statute", and "Illegal" the same thing? If something doesn't violate a statute isn't it by definition legal?
confused,
Alan

Isn't "violate a criminal statute", and "Illegal" the same thing? If something doesn't violate a statute isn't it by definition legal?
confused,

No.

The key here is that there are tons of laws that aren't criminal laws. They're civil laws, not crimes. If you drive ten miles over the limit, or build your house too close to your property line, or open a small business without paying your local occupational license fee - all those things are illegal, but they aren't crimes in your jurisdiction. They're civil violations. Probably! That's not legal advice!

There's lots and lots of laws and rules and regulations and ordinances and whatnot that don't carry criminal penalties. Violating them is against the law, but you haven't committed a crime if you violate them.

How would this apply to Clinton? The IG's report generally describes the situation as people (other than Clinton) sending her classified information that should not have been located in an unauthorized location. But most of the criminal provisions governing classified information criminalize the act of moving the classified information around - duplicating it, taking it from where it's supposed to be, or giving it to someone who shouldn't have it. Passively receiving or keeping classified information, even in an unsecured location, doesn't appear to fall within those criminal statutes. Because the information has been removed from where it's suppose to be (note the passive voice there), the government can insist that it be returned - but because the person who has the information didn't commit the active crime of removing it in the first place, the fact that it's in the wrong place isn't necessarily a crime that the current custodian can be charged with.

Isn't "violate a criminal statute", and "Illegal" the same thing? If something doesn't violate a statute isn't it by definition legal?
confused,
Alan

-------------------

It IS confusing and worse, is upside down as far as common citizens are concerned. Albaby certainly is credible as he explains the criteria but the fact that Clinton avoided any sanction for what she did with her private server and the rest of it is a BIG reason regular folks have lost confidence in our system of justice. And this loss of trust is bad for our country regardless of which side of the aisle you set on.

bighairymike: albaby certainly is credible as he explains the criteria but the fact that Clinton avoided any sanction for what she did with her private server and the rest of it is a BIG reason regular folks have lost confidence in our system of justice.

People have lost confidence in government institutions because that was all part of the Trump con.

Before Clinton, according to the state department, both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, America's top diplomats under president George W Bush, were sent sensitive national security information to nongovernment email addresses.

After Trump was elected, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter Ivanka Trump, both advisers to the president, had used either personal email accounts or the messaging application WhatsApp to conduct official government business. By using WhatsApp, messages were encrypted between users and there was no way to record what was said in those official government conversations.

Kushner's attorney refused to say whether classified information had ever been discussed on WhatApp. IOW, yes.

Former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland and former adviser Stephen K. Bannon had also, at times, used personal email accounts for official business, including using AOL to share a proposal to send nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

Other Trump administration officials, including adviser Stephen Miller, former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn had all used personal email accounts to conduct official business.

As someone (or many others) have correctly pointed out: half of the people who ever worked in government would have to be prosecuted for using unofficial communication devices (including Trump, who refused to use secure government-issued phones).

Trump got voters to chant "Lock Her Up!" and made her email an issue because he's a con man and he's been a con man his entire life. Unfortunately for those of us who saw through the con, we've had to suffer through the election of the most criminal, anti-American president in history... and likely watch millions of people fall for yet another similar con in 2024.

Like the con man said, "I love the poorly educated."


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/co...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/21...

https://www.politico.eu/article/hillary-clinton-do...

What my guy did is OK because your guy did worse. - commonone

=========================

OK, got it.

the fact that Clinton avoided any sanction for what she did with her private server and the rest of it is a BIG reason regular folks have lost confidence in our system of justice. And this loss of trust is bad for our country regardless of which side of the aisle you set on.

There probably wasn't any way to avoid that. It was a Presidential election. The claim that Clinton was a criminal, and that the only explanation for why she wasn't being charged was political favoritism, was far too valuable for the Trump campaign and its surrogates to pass up. "Lock her up!" Indeed, it would have been political malpractice if they hadn't hammered that morning, noon and night. The only folks who could have done the right thing and effectively pushed back on that narrative would have been conservative media (not just Fox, but the constellation of other hosts and networks and talk radio and commentators with credibility in conservative circles). But it would have been commercial suicide for them to step out in front of that train and try to educate their listeners/viewers about what the law really says. Wasn't ever going to happen.

It's lamentable, but in a "Flight 93" election, no one on the conservative side was going to step up and say, "Well, actually she hasn't committed any crimes, and that's why she isn't being indicted." The mainstream media did some of that, but obviously they have very limited influence in the specific group of "regular folks" that lost confidence in our system of justice over l'affaire Clintion.

They've got a similar (though smaller) opportunity today, of course. They could educate those "regular folks" that the reason that Trump is in trouble while Clinton and Biden (and Pence) are not is not because of DOJ bias. It's because possessing classified documents in a place they shouldn't be typically isn't a crime, but refusing to give them back and trying to conceal that you haven't done so is. I don't expect they'll do that, though. The loss of trust is bad for our country, but it's not as bad to conservative thought and media leaders than being on the wrong side of the former President.

OK, got it.

Mike,

Where did you get that quote? It wasn't in the message you were responding to. So I'm wondering if the attribution was correct (commonone). Can't check context if I can't read the whole message.

There probably wasn't any way to avoid that. It was a Presidential election. The claim that Clinton was a criminal, and that the only explanation for why she wasn't being charged was political favoritism, was far too valuable for the Trump campaign and its surrogates to pass up. "Lock her up!" Indeed, it would have been political malpractice if they hadn't hammered that morning, noon and night. The only folks who could have done the right thing and effectively pushed back on that narrative would have been conservative media (not just Fox, but the constellation of other hosts and networks and talk radio and commentators with credibility in conservative circles). But it would have been commercial suicide for them to step out in front of that train and try to educate their listeners/viewers about what the law really says. Wasn't ever going to happen. - albaby

------------------------

That is an excellent observation. Politics aside, here is my take on Hillary's server and the larger issues of erosion of public confidence. Sorry in advance for the long post....

My disillusionment is not rooted in Trump's chant of 'lock her up'. It is that Clinton simply thumbed her nose at the rules (with NO consequences), specifically ignoring the requirement to conduct government business on a secure government server. The fact that some Republicans did that same thing back when is not an excuse. I believe that the old 'My guy's malfeasance is excusable because your guy is worse' excuse is simply a race to the bottom, if such a bottom can even be reached. In the context of Clinton's e-mail issue, I contrast Hillary's treatment to that poor sailor who was crushed for innocently taking a picture in his submarine.

I admit since I am conservative, I am more sensitive to apparent bias favoring Democrats more than Republicans but generally I would prefer they all get prosecuted. That is the only road to restoring trust in government and the rule of law.

If I got a subpoena to preserve all the files on my laptop and then deleted half them before giving it to law enforcement, I would expect to be prosecuted for non-compliance. Or more likely if law enforcement was convinced my laptop was likely to contain important evidence, they would conduct a raid and seize it, depriving me of the opportunity to wipe it (and not with a cloth). With Hillary, not so much.

In a significant case, if I filed a contrived document I knew to be false with the court, I should and would be prosecuted. With Comey, not so much.

And how about that cadre of Mueller lawyers who deleted all the data on their government issued Blackberries at the end of the investigation in violation of the 'law' or is it 'rules'.

Michael Flynn lying to the FBI, string him up, Bill Casey under oath, lying to Congress, crickets.

And on and on.

These laws that congress writes that define illegal behavior that is not criminal are toothless and pointless and need to be revised. That would go a long way in restoring regular citizens faith in government, if there were regular prosecutions rather than seeing politicians sidestepping on technicalities. And who knows, after a few dozen perp walks, maybe the bad behavior would diminish.

BTW, what about the lack of prosecutions emanating Jeffery Epstein's Pedophile Island? Politicized FBI, that's why. If not that, then what else explains it?

Where did you get that quote? It wasn't in the message you were responding to.

Yes, it was. The message was loud and clear.

It is that Clinton simply thumbed her nose at the rules (with NO consequences), specifically ignoring the requirement to conduct government business on a secure government server. The fact that some Republicans did that same thing back when is not an excuse.

I don't think it's offered as an excuse; it's offered to support the argument that the behavior isn't criminal. If lots of people are engaged in the same sort of behavior and none of them are being prosecuted, that's supportive evidence that the behavior isn't a criminal violation. That "poor sailor," on the other hand, clearly violated a criminal statute.

This happens in a lot of different fields - I won't be the first to note that it's easier to send someone to jail for stealing a TV than "stealing" a million dollars through issuing mortgage-backed securities. That's largely because criminal statutes on theft of physical property are much clearer and easier to apply than those regarding financial crimes, where the edges of prohibited behavior are far murkier.

If I got a subpoena to preserve all the files on my laptop and then deleted half them before giving it to law enforcement, I would expect to be prosecuted for non-compliance.

Sure. But that's not what happened in l'affaire Clinton. Clinton (or rather her team) gave direction to have the emails deleted before the subpoena was issued, and the subpoena was from Congress and not a law enforcement agency. The latter point means that deleting the emails was likely not a criminal act, and the former means that Clinton (as opposed to anyone else) couldn't be guilty of doing anything wrong because she didn't delete the emails after a subpoena was issued.

Again, this goes back to what we talked about before - not just on the law, but on the facts of the situation there were a lot of incorrect claims that no one in the conservative media sphere had any incentive to correct. "Lock her up!"

In a significant case, if I filed a contrived document I knew to be false with the court, I should and would be prosecuted. With Comey, not so much.

Why would you expect to be prosecuted? Unless the document is one where there are criminal penalties for it being false, you wouldn't have committed a crime. Lawyers filing false documents with a court are, of course, subject to a wide variety of sanctions - but they're generally professional sanctions (up to and including disbarment). Only if you're under oath would a lie be prosecutable.

And, of course, even if your false statement were made under oath perjury is a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute, because it's not enough to prove the statement was false. You have to prove that the defendant knew it was false, and wasn't simply mistaken. That's really hard to do, especially when upper-level people are relying on information provided to them by lower-level folks. Hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what someone actually had in their head.

BTW, what about the lack of prosecutions emanating Jeffery Epstein's Pedophile Island? Politicized FBI, that's why. If not that, then what else explains it?

The fact that they don't have any evidence that could support another charge?

It's ridiculously hard to prosecute criminal cases after a decade unless you've got a witness pointing to a specific defendant to file charges against. Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted and put away for a very long time. But there were victims who were willing to testify against her. After her, who? Other than general allegations that people other than Epstein and Maxwell were involved, who's the next defendant? You can't just charge people who went there - you need evidence that they committed some crime.

We have Epstein victims who were willing to say in court that Epstein molested them and that Ghislaine participated in the scheme. There may be many more victims of Epstein and Ghislaine - but one's dead, and the other's in jail. If there's going to be any other prosecutions, you need someone who was victimized by someone else.

No it wasn't. I did a search for "worse" on the page of the message he replied to, and it did not appear. He may have lifted the quote from another message, and mistakenly replied to that one. Happens a lot. I just wanted to read the full context.

bighairymike: ... that poor sailor who was crushed for innocently taking a picture in his submarine.

Right. Kristian Saucier innocently took photos of the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment.

Saucier then innocently destroyed key evidence including his laptop computer, a camera and a memory card after an interview with the FBI in 2012.

What could be more innocent than that?


bighairymike: It is that Clinton simply thumbed her nose at the rules (with NO consequences)

Well, that's your opinion but there are no facts to back-up your opinion. She used the same system when she was a New York senator and when she ran for president in 2008 for convenience, she said, "to avoid carrying multiple devices" ' for personal and official business.

And by "rules," I think you mean "policies".


bighairymike: If I got a subpoena to preserve all the files on my laptop and then deleted half them before giving it to law enforcement, I would expect to be prosecuted for non-compliance.

She didn't do that.

First, state department policy allowed her (or anyone) to delete personal emails. She instructed her attorneys to review all of her emails and separate messages into "personal" and "work-related". They did so by key word search finding 30,490 work-related emails and 31,830 private emails.

According to the FBI, a Clinton lawyer told Platte River Networks (PRN) ' which was maintaining Clinton's private server ' that the former secretary no longer needed any emails that were more than 60 days old, and instructed the company discard them. The PRN employee told the FBI that "sometime between March 25-31, 2015" he realized he did not make the change requested by Clinton's office and he deleted her old emails at that time.

So Platte River Networks deleted those emails, not Clinton. The company just screwed-up what it had been instructed to do.


bighairymike: In a significant case, if I filed a contrived document I knew to be false with the court, I should and would be prosecuted.

Again, that never happened.


bighairymike: And how about that cadre of Mueller lawyers who deleted all the data on their government issued Blackberries at the end of the investigation in violation of the 'law' or is it 'rules'.

Well, I guess you follow Judicial Watch... but that's another myth.

The DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigation of the underlying conduct of the FBI and Mueller investigators found that there was no improper conduct.


bighairymike: Michael Flynn lying to the FBI, string him up, Bill Casey under oath, lying to Congress, crickets.

Reagan's Casey? Well, he had the decency to die from a brain tumor five months after giving that testimony, so, umm, karma?

Why anyone still supports Flynn is one of life's mysteries. But hey, if you love the guy then become a founding member of his "4thePURE" for $2,500 and you can connect with blood donors, sperm donors, breastmilk donors, surrogates, and unvaccinated singles... folks not tainted by the COVID-19 vaccine.


bighairymike: These laws that congress writes that define illegal behavior ...

Yeah, mostly you're referring to policies, not laws. And you don't get indicted for violating policies.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/09/12/...

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clint...

Saucier then innocently destroyed key evidence including his laptop computer, a camera and a memory card after an interview with the FBI in 2012.

Oh, so destroying evidence is bad, now? Like say, wiping a server like with a cloth?

That's a bad thing? Do tell.

onepoorguy: No it wasn't. I did a search for "worse" on the page of the message he replied to, and it did not appear. He may have lifted the quote from another message, and mistakenly replied to that one.

I never wrote what he implied I wrote and decided to build a flimsy straw man to attack instead.

OK, got it.

Mike,

Where did you get that quote? It wasn't in the message you were responding to. So I'm wondering if the attribution was correct (commonone). Can't check context if I can't read the whole message. - 1pg

-------------------

I was being snarky.

CO had responded to my disillusionment with the lack of consequences regarding Hillary's e-mail (which albaby has explained thoroughly) with a litany of Trumps sins which I summarized as a variation of the dismissive defense of "Yeah, but your guy is worse".

If there's going to be any other prosecutions, you need someone who was victimized by someone else. - albaby

--------------------

What about the suspected and voluminous acts of pedophilia committed by a wide range of politicians and celebrities? I know, where is the evidence? My answer, it is waiting on a thorough and unbiased investigation by the FBI.

The FBI had to be prodded and embarrassed into investigating the claims of abuse by the women's Olympic gymnastic team. Up to that point, the FBI had successfully ignored the issue despite it being shown they were fully aware of the accusations. This is where we are with Pedophile Island, there is no evidence because there has not been a real investigation. Why? Because the rich and powerful would be the defendants. Two tier system of justice on display.

What about the suspected and voluminous acts of pedophilia committed by a wide range of politicians and celebrities?

What wide range of politicians and celebrities?

Here we're moving away from what's established (that Epstein committed sexual crimes against underage girls) and into speculation. And pretty unlikely speculation. Epstein would have to be a fool to give people he barely knew (or even that he knew well) the power to ruin him if they ever got caught doing anything wrong; Ghislaine would have been a fool not to trade the names of the "politicians and celebrities" to reduce her sentence. Not one of the many victims who were willing to testify against Epstein and Ghislaine ever pointed the finger at anyone else - with the noticeable exception of Prince Andrew, who was investigated.

Occam's razor says that the reason that there aren't any prosecutions of "voluminous" acts of pedophilia committed by a wide range of politicians and celebrities are that there weren't such voluminous acts. Not that there's a vast conspiracy to hide them.

Albaby

I was being snarky.

OK. I was thinking he was being sarcastic, but without context the quote was ambiguous (to me).

I won't speak for commonone, but I don't think most people (on either side) are 'ok' with misconduct. As I think albaby is explaining very well, the devil is in the details. Some are policies, not laws. Timing matters. Intent matters. Who sent/took documents to where. Etc. At least as the law presently exists (i.e. the legislators could remove the intent portions if they wanted to).

What wide range of politicians and celebrities? - albaby

There is a lengthy list in this article, ostensibly obtained from court records. I know the FBI investigated Epstein and Maxwell but I never heard anything about crimes that may have been committed by the "John's". Maybe these were too but I can't find any reference to the FBI investigating this aspect of the activities on that island.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/everything...

------------------------------------------------

Epstein would have to be a fool to give people he barely knew (or even that he knew well) the power to ruin him if they ever got caught doing anything wrong; - albaby

The way I understand it was the it was quite the opposite. Epstein had the goods on the rich and powerful who succumbed to the temptations he arranged and that was the source of Epstein's power and wealth.


Anyway, I don't want to veer down this rabbit hole when there are better examples of the FBI's lack of vigor in pursuing certain crimes, eg the women's gymnastic team.

There is a lengthy list in this article, ostensibly obtained from court records.

Did you mean to cite another article? There's no lengthy list in that one. The only other person who is mentioned is Prince Andrew.

Anyway, I don't want to veer down this rabbit hole when there are better examples of the FBI's lack of vigor in pursuing certain crimes, eg the women's gymnastic team.

There is indeed a long, sad history in this country of not believing accusations of sexual assault. That's the whole basis for the "me too" movement. But Larry Nassar (nor any of the other horrible people involved) wasn't an especially wealthy person, nor a celebrity, and certainly not a politician. From the IG's report, this was a (horribly inexcusable) failure on their part to take these allegations seriously and follow through with transferring the case to the right people (the big breakdown was in not documenting the initial witness statements and properly referring the case to Lansing. It wasn't a grand conspiracy, and it wasn't because the FBI (as an institution) supports child molestation - it was specific agents who didn't take it seriously and couldn't be bothered to do what had to be done to move the case along.

Albaby

>>There is a lengthy list in this article, ostensibly obtained from court records.,,

Did you mean to cite another article? There's no lengthy list in that one. The only other person who is mentioned is Prince Andrew. - albaby

--------------------------

Sorry. I had to look at several articles to find one that had an actual list. Here is the link I intended...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11548479/jeffrey-eps...

Sorry. I had to look at several articles to find one that had an actual list. Here is the link I intended...

No worries. But I still have the same question. This article also isn't a list of "suspected and voluminous acts of pedophilia committed by a wide range of politicians and celebrities." It's a list of people who might have witnessed Epstein's and Ghislaine's conduct. Not a list of people who might have committed "acts of pedophilia" themselves. Or even that witnessed or knew of Epstein's acts of pedophilia - just people who might have been a witness to their "trafficking conduct and interaction with minors" (emphasis mine). It's a witness list - and if I'm Virginia Roberts' lawyer, it's a list of every person she can remember who ever saw her with Epstein and Ghislaine, regardless of context. There's not even a hint that any of those people themselves committed "acts of pedophilia," or witnessed anything at all that would or should lead the FBI to even investigate anyone other than Epstein and Ghislaine (and Prince Andrew), let alone prosecute.

Was there another list you were thinking of?

That's interesting. I was aware of the Epstein and Ghislaine mess, but wasn't really following it too closely. What little I encountered made it sound like there was a -for lack of a better way of saying it- "little black book" with names. Perhaps I assumed too much in thinking it was like a madam's book of clients. Haven't really heard much about it since Epstein's death.

No incriminating testimony or videos (or photos) of anyone on that list? Hmm. Glad I never really commented that much about it, or I would have looked like I didn't know what I was talking about (which I wouldn't have, evidently).

I'm sure Prince Andrew has diplomatic immunity regardless, but is he still under investigation? Or is it closed?

I'm sure Prince Andrew has diplomatic immunity regardless, but is he still under investigation? Or is it closed?

I know that Andrew had offered a substatial financial settlement to the woman who had taken him to court. She accepted, and called off her suit. His action was regarded by many as a covert admission of guilt. So I don't think he's under any legal threat now. But he's lost all of his meaningful perks as a royal.

That's interesting. I was aware of the Epstein and Ghislaine mess, but wasn't really following it too closely. What little I encountered made it sound like there was a -for lack of a better way of saying it- "little black book" with names. Perhaps I assumed too much in thinking it was like a madam's book of clients. Haven't really heard much about it since Epstein's death. - 1pg

-------------------

I too thought I was aware. In addition to the little black book there were the mysterious Lolita Express flight logs that were reported to have all sorts of politicians, celebrities and uber wealthy taking Epstein's plane to Pedophile Island. And somehow I had the impression many of them went there to partake of the pleasures offered by the young girls collected by Epstein and Maxwell. Not offending the powerful would be a good reason to avoid a real investigation (see Hunter Biden).

However, under the gentle but persistent questioning by Albaby, I honestly have to admit I had it wrong. To respond to him, I wanted to find the list of "johns" and not having any success doing a direct search, I tried searching out all the women who had complaints against Epstein. None of them implicated anybody besides Epstein and/or Maxwell except for the one Prince Andrew accusation. So I have changed my perspective on the Pedophile Island issue. However, I still maintain a general skepticism that there is bias and political influence at the highest levels of the FBI.

However, under the gentle but persistent questioning by Albaby, I honestly have to admit I had it wrong.

Hey, no fair! People aren't allowed to admit they were wrong on the internet!

Albaby

I can't believe you people are engaging with QAnon conspirators. Put the clowns on ignore and start debating the merits of eastern spirituality versus the rapacious deism of the west.

I can't believe you people are engaging with QAnon conspirators. Put the clowns on ignore and start debating the merits of eastern spirituality versus the rapacious deism of the west. = PhoolishPhillip

---------------

Since the post you responded to was albaby responding to me, I guess your QAnon label is aimed at me. Let me say I would rather discuss issues of the day intelligently with someone like albaby than with an idiot like you who really has nothing constructive to say.

I wasn't even sure what QAnon was, so I had to look it up.... Amusing as it is stupid....

from wikipedia

QAnon is an American political conspiracy theory and political movement. It originated in the American far-right political sphere in 2017.[1] QAnon centers on fabricated claims made by an anonymous individual or individuals known as "Q". Those claims have been relayed, developed and supplemented by numerous communities and influencers associated with the movement.

The core QAnon conspiracy theory is that a cabal of Satanic,[2][3][4] cannibalistic child molesters are operating a global child sex trafficking ring which conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump during his term in office.[8] The QAnon conspiracy theory has direct roots in Pizzagate, an Internet conspiracy theory that appeared one year earlier; it also incorporates elements of many other theories.[9] Some experts have described QAnon as a cult

-

You didn't know QAnon? Well, I guess that was like me not knowing Chicago's mayor when you and some others were discussing that several months ago (on canonian's board, as I recall). We can't know everything.

QAnon is why many people (including me) refer to the QOP. I can't get myself to say "grand" anymore, and I'm a former Republican. And after Pizzagate, in particular, "QOP" just kinda stuck for me. Not that conspiracy theories are exclusive to the right (e.g. the left has some nonsense surrounding vaccinating their kids), but Q is decidedly right-wing.

Not that conspiracy theories are exclusive to the right (e.g. the left has some nonsense surrounding vaccinating their kids)

There is some common ground shared by left and right folks on the fringes of health care.
My youngest sister runs a clothing optional B&B spa/nature farm. She adores Pablo Neruda, the Dalai Lama, believes the anti-vax hype, and swears Ivermectin prevents Covid even though she's and her 'partner' have both had Covid at lease once.

Several of San Clemente, CA's prominent anti-vax/anti-mask/anti-shutdown crowd ...the crowd that called Orange County Sheriffs 'pigs' for enforcing beach parking lot closures, were busted for their participation on Jan6 in D.C.

Strange bedfellows.

believes the anti-vax hype, and swears Ivermectin prevents Covid even though she's and her 'partner' have both had Covid at lease once.

----------

So about the same track record as those who did get the vax.

bighairymike: So about the same track record as those who did get the vax.

Wut?

Where do you get your data?

Here:

Vaccinated people who received a booster were 14X less likely to die from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated and 3X less likely to die compared with those who received only the original COVID-19 vaccine(s).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.ht...

Here, from Washington state:

COVID-19 death rates among 65+ year-olds are 1.8 times higher in the unvaccinated population than in the population receiving at least one booster.

COVID-19 death rates among 35 - 64 year-olds are 1.6 times higher in the unvaccinated population than in the population receiving at least one booster.

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421...

From a JAMA study: In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19 during January 2022 to April 2022 (during Omicron variant predominance), COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates were 10.5 times higher in unvaccinated persons and 2.5 times higher in vaccinated persons with no booster dose, respectively, compared with those who had received a booster dose.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedic...

And on and on and on...

So about the same track record as those who did get the vax?

Asked multiple times.

Debunked factually multiple time.

The response debunking your belief is available on numerous threads where you have made the same bunk claim.

bighairymike: So about the same track record as those who did get the vax.

Wut?

--------------

The vaccine was first promoted as preventing you from acquiring.

When that turned out wrong, the promotion morphed into, the vax would prevent you from passing along the virus.

When that turned out wrong, the promotion morphed into, the vax would make the symptoms less severe.

When the statistics showed that young children were for all intents and purposes immune from Covid, the promoters continued to push it to that age group.

Somewhere along this road, I developed a healthy dose of skepticism about what the so-called experts were telling us. Perhaps they were doing the best the could at the time but the reality was they were often wrong.

To get back to your example. Your sister and her partner apparently contracted covid despite taking Ivermectin. My response was people who got vaxed also went on to contract covid. Is that not true?

My response was people who got vaxed also went on to contract covid. Is that not true?

Sure it's true, but it's a meaningless anecdote in the big picture because, on its own it suggests mask and vax provided no benefits.

Many knowledgeable people have explained the benefits of masking and vaccination to you. You either choose to discredit the data/facts, as is your option, or you're pretending to have never heard that information. Either way, it got old fast and I ain't a-goin' down that road with you.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.